Basic Human Rights : Dignity - Equality

•WORST FLOODING TO AFFECT PAKISTAN IN 80 YEARS

•1,600 DEAD , OVER 20 MILLION PEOPLE AFFECTED , 600,000 HOMES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED

•JOIN HANDS WITH BHR TO HELP FLOOD VICTIMS , DONATE ONLINE TO CONTRIBUTE YOUR SHARE


Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education. “ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ” —Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Indivisibility The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination: “ The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights ” —International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the full belly thesis). The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action: “ All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis ” —Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993 This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121). Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most do not in practice give equal weight to the different types of rights. Some Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work, to education, healthcare free at the point of use. That is not to say that Western cultures have overlooked these rights entirely (the welfare states that exist in Western Europe are evidence of this). Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights. and housing. For example, in the United States there is no universal access to healthcare.

Categorization Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights argue that economic, social and cultural rights are fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require completely different approaches. Economic, social and cultural rights are argued to be: •positive, meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights) •resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide •progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement •vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are adequately provided or not is difficult to judge •ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should and shouldn't be provided as a right •socialist, as opposed to capitalist •non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a court of law •aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as: •negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action •cost-free •immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to •precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure •non-ideological/non-political •capitalist •justiciable •real 'legal' rights In The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights Olivia Ball and Paul Gready argue that for both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights it is easy to find examples which do not fit into the above categorisation. Amongst several others, they highlight the fact that maintaining a judicial system, a fundamental requirement of the civil right to due process before the law and other rights relating to judicial process, is positive, resource-intensive, progressive and vague, while the social right to housing is precise, justiciable and can be a real 'legal' right. Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of human rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorisation is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without others. Prioritisation of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity. Human rights expert Philip Alston argues: “ If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then nothing will be treated as though it is truly important. ” —Philip Alston He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights: “ ...the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored. ” —Philip Alston “ Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable attempts at progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality and participation. ” —Olivia Ball, Paul Gready Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights." The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered." Universalism vs. cultural relativism The UDHR enshrines universal rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical location, state, race or culture they belong to. Proponents of cultural relativism argue for acceptance of different cultures, which may have practices conflicting with human rights. For example female genital mutilation occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is considered a violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the international community, and is outlawed in some countries. Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere. For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. The former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad both claimed in the 1990s that Asian values were significantly different from western values and included a sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity, and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. This view is countered by Mahathir's former deputy: “ To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our forefathers, who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices. ” —A Ibrabim in his keynote speech to the Asian Press Forum title Media and Society in Asia, 2 December 1994 and also by Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan who states that it is racist to assert that Asians do not want human rights. An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human rights thinkers, such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the running of Empires themselves. Cultural relativism is a self-detonating position; if cultural relativism is true, then universalism must also be true. Relativistic arguments also tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also don't account for the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi. Michael Ignatieff has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those whose human rights are compromised are the powerless. This reflects the fact that the difficulty in judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture. Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international community's adherence to this principle: “ The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question. ” —2005 World Summit, paragraph 120

Job Opportunities | News & Events | Make Donations | Photo Gallery

Head Office:24 Sunbridge Road, Bradford BD1 2AA, United Kingdom
Tel: 01274 301 996 , Cell: 0796 768 7925 , 0753 401 6444 Fax: +44 1274 301997
Email: info@basichumanrights.org.uk
©2010- Basic Human Rights